Well, Apple first worked with Motorola, but they couldn't meet the demands, that's why they went to IBM.

Now, about using AGP cards, IDE drives: they only did much later, to lower costs.

But frankly, if they had to go x86, I would have prefered AMD. Not cos of the rivality between AMD and Intel, just because AMD already worked with IBM on similar technologies (SOI, stretched silicon...).

Well, the world can't be perfect

I hope one thing will remain though: the quality. Except for the Ipod Shuffle, and maybe other examples I don't know, Apple did a great job concerning the build quality of their products.

There was a remark that AMD wouldn't be able to meet Apple's volume demands.

Come on! Apple has a tiny percentage of the market. If AMD can't cover even that then they should get their head out of their *** and built another factory, because look what it has costed them already: a huge deal that would make them true rivals to Intel and not the (almost) niche enthusiast market specialists they are now.

AMD is just reaching crossover (i.e., new generation of CPUs outselling previous generation) now with Athlon 64s twenty-one months after product introduction, a process which normally takes six-months. [b]They are now having problems with dual core.[b]

There was a remark that AMD wouldn't be able to meet Apple's volume demands.

Come on! Apple has a tiny percentage of the market. If AMD can't cover even that then they should get their head out of their *** and built another factory, because look what it has costed them already: a huge deal that would make them true rivals to Intel and not the (almost) niche enthusiast market specialists they are now.